Gov. Tim Pawlenty from Minnesota is thinking about running for pres. He is the only reason MN does not have medical marijuana laws, he swore he would veto anything that got passed. Better spread the word to keep him out of the white house if you want to continue to have your state rights.
Presidental bid, God I hope not
- Thread starter homerun
- Start date
sinbad
New Member
Gotcha-We got a new Gov in Michigan who most people who ever voted for him, might be now knowing would love to take back what the people gave us in 2008.
KOcacolakills
New Member
So I have little knowledge of this Pawlenty guy, is he as bad as Bachmann with her plans to Ban Porn, attack gay marriage, and just generally be a conservative stick in the mud?
They ought to make a reservation for people who want to live in the 1950's and kick and scream anytime something is different from the good ol' days of beaver cleaver.
They ought to make a reservation for people who want to live in the 1950's and kick and scream anytime something is different from the good ol' days of beaver cleaver.
budlydoright
Well-Known Member
I still have a hard time believing that any of us here could vote for a republican. Seems like we're all a fairly progressive bunch here. Voting for any of this current bunch is asking for trouble. All of them have signed Norquist's pledge and many others have signed pledges to these religous groups promissing to keep anyone that doesn't agree with them in their place!
Just look what congress is trying to pass every week. give em control and yes, we will be taken back to what racist white folks would call the good ol days. shit they'd still like tobe able to put you in jail for breeding outside of your race.
Just look what congress is trying to pass every week. give em control and yes, we will be taken back to what racist white folks would call the good ol days. shit they'd still like tobe able to put you in jail for breeding outside of your race.
I don't know man... some of that "good ol day" don't look too bad compared to where we are now!
budlydoright
Well-Known Member
It's kind of funny, Back to the good ol days when the richest paid 70+% taxes if they didn't re-invest into the economy? Or just back to the parts were white people controlled everything? which is it? I think if we went back to the tax rates we had before regan things would get better for our country.
Monty Floyd
Active Member
I have a hard time believing that people still think there is a difference between R and D's.
WillyBudz
New Member
From my visits to Europe and Australia, many of the people I met think there is little difference between the crazy righties and ball-less lefties. We have one of the most corrupt governments on the planet atm.
WillyB
WillyB
I'm going to go out on a limb and say we should judge potential candidates on more than just their drug policy. The fact that he tried to address inefficiencies in Minnesota's health services back in 2007 tells me this guy is at least thinking more than two feet in front of his face.
I'm confused. You want more Carter?
I'm confused. You want more Carter?
budlydoright
Well-Known Member
Was never a fan of carter and was too young to know. that said. If we would have followed his energy policies back then, we would be a stronger country now.
and I'm not for higher taxes but I do believe that we need to put the incentives back into investing in american jobs. instead of into chinese jobs. those incentives were tax breaks, but since they reduced those taxes, all of the wall streeters have shipped our jobs out for slave labor.
It bothers me, the reaction people have to a union worker making 30 an hour, yet they have no problem paying their healthcare premiums to unitied healthcare whose ceo makes 100 million a year. He's smart so he deserves to wages of 1700 hard working Americans. I call bullshit.
And while there is little difference between R & D politicians, there's a big difference between the people who vote R or D.
Unionized educational administrators here in California worry me more than a private entity that generates its own revenue. Retiring at 50 years old with 3% of your final year's salary multiplied by the number of years worked. Hot damn that's better than any savings plan.
A final year's salary can be upward of 450 days when cashing in up to 150 sick and vacation days too. This isn't just one group in California either, it's every public worker from governors to lifeguards. In my state, public sector wages are up 20% since 2005 alone. The number of retirees receiving pensions of over $100K annually has more than doubled since that year. That's even through the continued recession.
Look up the Davis-Bacon Act. Public workers make far more via prevailing wages than any hard working American in the private sector.
Again, the CEO of United Healthcare doesn't scare me.
A final year's salary can be upward of 450 days when cashing in up to 150 sick and vacation days too. This isn't just one group in California either, it's every public worker from governors to lifeguards. In my state, public sector wages are up 20% since 2005 alone. The number of retirees receiving pensions of over $100K annually has more than doubled since that year. That's even through the continued recession.
Look up the Davis-Bacon Act. Public workers make far more via prevailing wages than any hard working American in the private sector.
Again, the CEO of United Healthcare doesn't scare me.
budlydoright
Well-Known Member
I just see the united healthcare thing as a private tax. everyone bitches about the working class. Should a public sector worker not be able to make a good living? No one wants their taxes to go to union workers making a living wage for some reason but have no problem having healthcare insurance costs going through the roof much of which is to pay these hugh saleries to the few at the top.
For me it would take that billion dollars over 10yrs, to overcome the guilt I would feel for taking more than I need at the expense of others.
Too me it seems like there's an effort to keep us bitching at each other over our little piece of the dream, while the robber barrons make off with the treasury.
Michele Bachman is a perfect example of this. Her family has sucked 300,000+ dollars out of the US treasury per year in grants and farm subsidies while she beats the drum for less social programs for the less fortunate. Why aren't the people turning on people like?
For me it would take that billion dollars over 10yrs, to overcome the guilt I would feel for taking more than I need at the expense of others.
Too me it seems like there's an effort to keep us bitching at each other over our little piece of the dream, while the robber barrons make off with the treasury.
Michele Bachman is a perfect example of this. Her family has sucked 300,000+ dollars out of the US treasury per year in grants and farm subsidies while she beats the drum for less social programs for the less fortunate. Why aren't the people turning on people like?
No one wants their taxes to go to union workers because public sector workers are commonly making more than their more highly educated counterparts in the private sector with better benefits. Complaining about high healthcare costs is short-sighted. You pay even more for other people to have better coverage than you do.
That's exactly why tax adjustments are primary on the "rich". You've heard it's because 2% of the population controls most of the wealth. What really occurs is taxing 2% leaves 98% of the population oblivious to the effects of tax code.
If people really wanted lower healthcare costs they'd lower excise taxes in the medical industry. That's just math. Given the state of education in this country I'd count on high medical costs for awhile.
budlydoright
Well-Known Member
But the progreesive tax code was not designed to punish wealth, it was designed to keep money in our economy and generate jobs for the population.
Once the incentive to re-invest in Americans was removed, all of the wealth got shipped overseas. I personally think this is wrong.
Henry Ford figured this one out a long time ago. If you pay your workers enough to afford your products, you create a larger market for your products. While your piece of the pie is smaller as a percentage, the size of the pie is much larger.
Just seems we've lost our way. I believe in Americans and I belive we all have the right to make a decent living. It appears that we can't do that without xome investment comming back in.
Once the incentive to re-invest in Americans was removed, all of the wealth got shipped overseas. I personally think this is wrong.
Henry Ford figured this one out a long time ago. If you pay your workers enough to afford your products, you create a larger market for your products. While your piece of the pie is smaller as a percentage, the size of the pie is much larger.
Just seems we've lost our way. I believe in Americans and I belive we all have the right to make a decent living. It appears that we can't do that without xome investment comming back in.
What it was designed to do and what it does are two different things.
Say I have $9 and you are my employee with only $1. It benefits both of us to be satisfied so I give you an extra $1 of mine. There is still only $10 in play. Taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other doesn't increase wealth. That is redistribution of wealth. The pie stays the same size because neither of our abilities to create a product (wealth) has changed.
budlydoright
Well-Known Member
But if taking that extra dollar allows me to buy some materials and start building my own product, adding value to comething and selling it, then the extra dollar can produce more income for me.
Plus our system isn't statik. New money is generated based on debt.
I'm not suggesting that the answer is a giveaway, but shouldnt the US and the corporations that operate here provide opportunity for the people or should we have a society where the wealthy control everything. That's were we are headed.
So yes, I'm Pro Union, I am against all corporate welfare, would like to see universal healthcare and more taxes on businesses that ship jobs overseas.
Plus our system isn't statik. New money is generated based on debt.
I'm not suggesting that the answer is a giveaway, but shouldnt the US and the corporations that operate here provide opportunity for the people or should we have a society where the wealthy control everything. That's were we are headed.
So yes, I'm Pro Union, I am against all corporate welfare, would like to see universal healthcare and more taxes on businesses that ship jobs overseas.
Those taxes cause the jobs to be shipped overseas where the cost of operating is cheaper. Lose the taxes and the jobs come back. It's a tricky situation. Personally, I'm on the other end of it. My family has, at times, tapped into our personal savings to make payroll and keep employees of the family business working. When taxes go up or interest rates on payroll loans change even 0.5% it can make the difference between keeping people on a 20hr work week or flat out letting them go. Lower taxes lets us keep people employed through tough times.
budlydoright
Well-Known Member
My experience too comes from running a small family business, so I know exactly what you mean. There's a big difference between the tax structure for a small business and a multinational or even just a large corp. Shit our goverment gives more away to these companies than most people can imagine. My city gives away money to intel, tempurpedic, intuit, and many others to attract them to our city. we completely finance the movie industry with low interest loans. We subsidize virtually ALL beachfront property with national flood insurance. So I'm less inclined to blame the working class than I am the wealthy for our countries problems.
I do agree with keeping taxes low on small business and working-middleclass. So perhaps you misunderstood me, I was talking about the progressive tax structure and the associated breaks which used to keep their (wealthy) rate low and our employment and wages high.
If taxes being low created jobs, then we would be living large like in the Clinton years. Taxes are at historical lows.
I do agree with keeping taxes low on small business and working-middleclass. So perhaps you misunderstood me, I was talking about the progressive tax structure and the associated breaks which used to keep their (wealthy) rate low and our employment and wages high.
If taxes being low created jobs, then we would be living large like in the Clinton years. Taxes are at historical lows.
We lived large in the Clinton years because of revenue generated off the private sector via the .com boom.
Common misconception repeated all over the media. Top rates are lower, sure. Taxes being historically low is not true when you consider base broadening, excise taxes, self-employment taxes, loss of deductions in AMT brackets, property taxes, state income tax, sales tax, etc.
Even if taxes across the board were historically lower, government spending as a % of GDP is historically high and needs to come down.
Similar threads
